kramer733
- 322
- 0
I guess this is classified as euclidean geomtry right? So do we? If not, what else is there to know?
The discussion revolves around the completeness of knowledge in 2D geometry, particularly focusing on Euclidean geometry and its extensions. Participants explore whether there are still unknowns or new developments in this area, including references to related fields like algebraic and discrete geometry.
Participants express differing views on the completeness of knowledge in 2D geometry, with some arguing that new discoveries are still possible while others question the validity of declaring any field as fully explored.
The discussion touches on the historical context of geometry and its branches, noting that while some aspects may seem resolved, others remain open to inquiry. The relationship between Euclidean and algebraic geometry is also highlighted as a point of contention.
kramer733 said:I guess this is classified as euclidean geomtry right? So do we? If not, what else is there to know?
Wouldn't that be algebraic geometry? That's a couple thousand years past Euclidean geometry.micromass said:Well, one thing that still deludes us is the classification of polynomial equations.
For polynomials of degree one, that is: aX+bY+c, we know what it looks like graphically: lines.
Polynomials of degree two have the general form
aX^2+bXY+cY^2+dX+eY+f=0
These things are conic sections and can be classified as ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas.
Third degree polynomials are far less understood, but can still be classified.
But in general, I don't think there's a general classification for general n-degree polynomials...
TylerH said:Wouldn't that be algebraic geometry? That's a couple thousand years past Euclidean geometry.(I guess discrete geometry is too... but I'm hypocritical.)